≡ Menu

Antarctic Sea Ice Takes Over More Of The Ocean Than Ever Before

Antarctica's sea ice on Sept. 22, 2013. Scientists say there was more ice on the ocean then than in any time in recorded satellite history. Data came from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on Japan’s Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite. You can see the land in dark gray and ice shelves in light gray. The yellow line represents the average distribution of sea ice between 1981 and 2000. Credit: NASA/Jesse Allen, using data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite.

Antarctica’s sea ice on Sept. 22, 2013. Scientists say there was more ice on the ocean then than in any time in recorded satellite history. Data came from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on Japan’s Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite. You can see the land in dark gray and ice shelves in light gray. The yellow line represents the average distribution of sea ice between 1981 and 2000. Credit: NASA/Jesse Allen, using data from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite.

Antarctica’s sea ice is creeping further out in the ocean! New data from a Japanese satellite shows that sea ice surrounding the southern continent in late September reached out over 7.51 million square miles (19.47 million square kilometers).

The extent — a slight increase over 2012’s record of 7.50 million square miles (19.44 million square km) — is the largest recorded instance of Antarctica sea ice since satellite records began, NASA said. Data was recorded using the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) sensor on the Global Change Observation Mission 1st-Water (GCOM-W1) satellite.

“While researchers continue to study the forces driving the growth in sea ice extent, it is well understood that multiple factors—including the geography of Antarctica, the region’s winds, as well as air and ocean temperatures—all affect the ice,” NASA stated.

Update — see below for a more detailed description of why this is an important clue that climate change IS happening.

“Geography and winds are thought to be especially important. Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice is confined in a basin, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by open ocean. Since its sea ice is unconfined, it is particularly sensitive to changes in the winds. As noted by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, some research has suggested that changes in Antarctic sea ice are caused in part by a strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean.”

For those thinking that increased sea ice means we can relax about climate change, this humorous video explains the difference between land ice (glaciers) and sea ice (which is generated from snow, rainfall and fresh water). It’s definitely worth four minutes of your time. The part about sea ice starts around 2:45.

UPDATE: Just to clarify:

Here’s what the graphic says: “The water around Antarctica is more fresh than it has been in previous years because of increased snow and rainfall as well as in increased contribution of fresh water from melting land ice. This fresh cold water is less dense than the warmer, saltier water below. Previously, that warm salty water would rise, melting the sea ice. But now, bcaus of the lighter fresh water on top, there is less mixing of the ocean’s layer and the surface stays cooler longer. “

And so, there is increased fresh water because of the melting land ice – due to climate change. There is a fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorption of solar energy by the darker oceans.

See this article on SkepticalScience for additional information.

Source: NASA Earth Observatory

About 

Elizabeth Howell is the senior writer at Universe Today. She also works for Space.com, Space Exploration Network, the NASA Lunar Science Institute, NASA Astrobiology Magazine and LiveScience, among others. Career highlights include watching three shuttle launches, and going on a two-week simulated Mars expedition in rural Utah. You can follow her on Twitter @howellspace or contact her at her website.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Kapitalist October 31, 2013, 3:28 PM

    This political climate panic-hate needs to stop!
    Global temperatures haven’t changed at all for over a decade and a half now. Thus it is unsurprising that the ice coverage around the poles vary randomly. BTW, isn’t ice formation of the arctic ocean dominated by complex variations in the sweet water river outflows from Siberia and Canada? Antarctica has no rivers. What does it take to make the climat panic people to realize that they have been wrong? Could anyone of them mention any event which could disprove their theory? Or is it a political religion…

    • Jojo_1 October 31, 2013, 10:41 AM

      You should watch Chasing Ice.

    • Kapitalist October 31, 2013, 5:39 PM

      I’m sorry if my post above is perceived “political”. This site is far to good to dig itself down into the climat dispute. There’s too much dirt in that ugly business.

      • Shootist October 31, 2013, 5:46 PM

        Don’t apologize. Until there are dairy farms in Greenland and vineyards in Scotland, Norway, and Sweden, the climate hasn’t changed enough to match the medieval climate optimum, 850CE-1250CE.

        • Kapitalist October 31, 2013, 5:56 PM

          But there are many other forums where that discussion is taking place. Sad to see universetoday being dragged down into that loosing battle. Howell and Cain may have whatever political opinion they want, but it is unprofessional, and impopular (and a loosing strategy), of them to exploit this blog for that political purpose. Global warming is a political issue, not a scientific issue.

          • William Sparrow October 31, 2013, 11:35 PM

            Tell the 90 percent of the ocean’s species that are wiped out due to rising temperatures that this argument is political and not scientific in nature.

          • GunillaBx November 1, 2013, 12:59 PM

            Have you heard about Topex :) Guess not…

          • Kapitalist November 1, 2013, 1:09 PM

            Has that happened, or is in another false panic scare?

          • William Sparrow November 1, 2013, 3:59 PM

            Sorry, WILL be wiped out in the future. I should have been more clear.

          • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:36 PM

            Put the kool aid down

          • William Sparrow November 1, 2013, 11:35 PM

            I’m not drinking any, are you? I’m not saying species are currently dying off in the oceans, but they will IN THE FUTURE as ocean temperatures continue to rise. This temperature increase is factual, do some research; I don’t have the time to do it for you.

          • William Benoit November 2, 2013, 2:14 AM

            So your a fortune teller

          • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:46 PM

            Try naming the ones from so called global warming

          • William Sparrow November 1, 2013, 11:32 PM

            Try reading my comment correctly.

          • David English November 1, 2013, 8:53 AM

            How about the countless species that have disappeared due to natural occurrences throughout the life of the Earth. Things change on our living planet.

          • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:35 PM

            And what species are you Talking about

    • Joe_de_Loe October 31, 2013, 6:29 PM

      Global temperature – I assume you are only considering air temperature. It has not increased the past decade much, if at all. But that is taking data out of context. To put it in context and to see, for yourself, that the trend is upward, see page 27 of http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

      Next, since the data for air and ocean temperature is clearly averaging upward, snow cover and glacial ice is trending downward, you will need to attack the climate change scientists. With all the time you’ve spent studying the data, you obviously know better. If you understand that you don’t know better, then the scientists must be part of a conspiracy. They must be nameless, faceless people who will lie and fudge their data for, well, mysterious purposes. They don’t have children, go to movies, worry about their jobs, etc. They aren’t real people; they are just blind soldiers in the war to destroy us, our economy, our way of life.

      It couldn’t possibly be that some talking heads and for-profit news outlets have found that they can increase their ratings by ranting about climate change and that they are taking advantage of their listeners very human tendency to agree since the alternative means changing how they do things.

      No, of course you are right – the “political climate panic-hate needs to stop!”

      • rwayford October 31, 2013, 6:49 PM

        The context of Tree Ring Counting

        (and SKIPPING) Joe?

        “Treemometers: A new scientific
        scandal”

        “If a peer review fails in the
        woods…

        By Andrew Orlowski / Posted in “Science”
        9/29/2009

        “A scientific scandal is
        casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

        “At least eight papers
        purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to
        be revisited,

        with significant implications for
        contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments.

        A number of these involve senior
        climatologists

        at the British climate research
        centre CRU at the University East Anglia.

        In every case, PEER REVIEW FAILED TO
        PICK UP THE ERRORS.

        “At issue is the use of TREE
        RINGS as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology.

        Using statistical techniques,

        researchers take the ring data to
        create a “reconstruction” of historical temperature anomalies.

        But trees are a highly controversial
        indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record CO2,

        and also record humidity, rainfall,
        nutrient intake and other local factors.

        “Picking a temperature signal
        OUT OF ALL THIS NOISE IS PROBLEMATIC, and a dendrochronology can DIFFER
        SIGNIFICANTLY FROM INSTRUMENTED DATA.

        In dendro jargon, this disparity is
        called “divergence”.

        The process of creating a raw data
        set also involves a selective use of samples

        –A CHOICE OPEN TO A SCIENTIST’S
        BIASES.

        “Yet none of this has stopped
        paleoclimataologists from making BOLD claims using tree ring data.

        “In particular, since 2000, a
        large number of peer-reviewed climate papers

        have incorporated data from trees at
        the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia.

        This dataset gained favour,
        CURIOUSLY SUPERSEDING A NEWER AND LARGER DATA SET FROM NEARBY.

        The older Yamal trees indicated
        PRONOUNCED AND DRAMATIC UPTICK in temperatures.

        “How could this be?

        Scientists have ensured much of the
        measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret

        –failing to fulfill procedures to
        archive the raw data.

        WITHOUT THE RAW DATA, OTHER
        SCIENTISTS COULD NOT REPRODUCE THE RESULTS.

        The most prestigious peer reviewed
        journals, including ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’,

        were RELUCTANT TO DEMAND THE DATA
        FROM CONTRIBUTORS.

        Until now, that is.

        “At the insistence of editors
        of the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into
        the open –and Yamal’s mystery is no more.

        “From this we know that the
        Yamal data set

        USES JUST 12 TREES FROM A LARGER SET
        TO PRODUCE ITS DRAMATIC RECENT TREND.

        Yet many more were cored,

        and A LARGER DATA SET (of 34) FROM THE VICINITY SHOWS NO DRAMATIC
        RECENT WARMING,

        and warmer temperatures in the
        middle ages.

        “In all there are 252 cores in
        the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990.

        All 12 cores selected show strong
        growth since the mid-19th century.

        The implication is clear: the dozen
        were cherry-picked.”

        • Joe_de_Loe October 31, 2013, 8:08 PM

          Your source for the cut and paste tirade above appears to be the Register, which currently has on the front page articles about toilet plungers and Batman’s origins. Superb choice.

          This piece’s author writes mostly articles about smart phones. Again, excellent source for your climate information,

          The core of the the above claim is that climate scientists and journals are intentionally misleading us. That would, at this point, require many thousands of people to be part of a conspiracy. I work with lots of scientists every day. Many are independent and stubborn, like any cross-section of the population. They pretty much all would scream bloody murder if someone in sunglasses from the Bureau of Climate Information came in and told them what do do with their paper or data. Again, they are real people, not robots of some new world order.

          Science isn’t perfect, but it is self-correcting. It is perfectly plausible that the tree ring or any other single source of data is unreliable. It very plausible that journal reviewers will not review carefully enough every paper. But when there are billions of data points gathered by thousands of scientists, from hundreds of institutions, in tens of countries and across scores of disciplines, all pointing toward a warming Earth, then the odds of all of them being wrong is very small.

          What is really happening is that folks don’t like to think too deeply about this and actually read papers on it (as I have). To do so, and to admit you might be wrong, would challenge your sense of self. So you will reject my response, because you have picked your side and reconsidering is, quite literally, unthinkable. Try it. Pretend that it is you that might have been misled and that you will honestly investigate the research. I bet you can’t hold the thought in your head longer than 30 seconds before you go “bahhh….”

          • David English November 1, 2013, 8:56 AM

            I don’t think there’s much disagreement about the fact that the Earth goes through cyclic changes. What is unconscionable is that people are using it to further there own agenda…and bank account.

          • Aqua4U November 1, 2013, 10:16 PM

            Well spoken and thanks for the voice of reason and intelligence!

      • Kapitalist October 31, 2013, 7:56 PM

        That all seems extremely complicated, controversial and uncertain, Joe_de_Loe. And would the consequences of a warming really be bad, and worth the cost of lowering of human wealth by many trillions of dollars by destroying transports and energy production? Where are the scientific proofs of that? Wouldn’t warming improve agriculture and wild life? Couldn’t we, the living, continue to gradually adapt to changes, rather than to soviet-megalomanically try to mega-pyramidically politically change the climate like the Soviet bureaucrats tried with the Aral Lake= (For sure everyone of them with the best of intentions and blind belief in more power and money to their rulers as the solution)…

        The United Nations, which directs and funds the IPCC, is a majority of dictators. Or isn’t it? Do you think that fact is a “conspiracy”? They are maybe not all good persons.

        “It’s not fascism when WE do it!”…

        • Kapitalist October 31, 2013, 8:15 PM

          Terraforming the Earth…

        • Joe_de_Loe October 31, 2013, 10:50 PM

          Concerning consequences of global warming being better or worse for humanity in the long term, I don’t know. Would humans adapt to the changes, sure. Will it cost a lot of destruction and displacement as sea level rises? Yes. Will some species die out? Probably. Will it cost us a lot to change our energy infrastructure? Yes.. Which is worse? I don’t know and didn’t say that I did.

          Rather than addressing my basic point that global warming is extremely likely to be real, you chose to address a different point of your choosing. It is hard to have an actual discussion with people who are doing that.

          I’m not sure that I understand either of your last two paragraphs enough to address them. If you mean that all nations that make up the UN are not democracies, that’s true. So? The IPCC, and by extension, the UN, doesn’t control scientists who are funded by grants from about every place but the UN. The IPCC is a small subset of climate scientists from around the world, almost all of which are saying that the warming is real.

        • Jeffrey Scott Boerst November 2, 2013, 12:46 AM

          “I don’t understand it, so since it seems complicated controversial and uncertain to ME with my limited knowledge and education in this area, it must be the same for everyone as I am the blueprint example of human knowledge and understanding”.

      • GunillaBx November 1, 2013, 12:57 PM

        When Lysenko got Stalins ear, all scientists had to play ball or face abyss. It was not a conspiracy on the part of the scientists. It was something they had to do in order to stay alive. Today, a young scientist who does not deliver what the funding agency wants, is not killed or sent to Siberia, but are stripped of funding and becomes marginalized. Yes, they do have kids and they worry about their jobs. That is why the are willing to play ball.

        Listen to retired scientists. They have nothing or less to lose and can speak freely. You will be hardpressed to find anyone who are alarmed. That speaks volumes to me.

        • Joe_de_Loe November 1, 2013, 9:00 PM

          Thank-you for a response that is not a cut and paste, over-capitalized diatribe.I hadn’t though about this before. One reason that the hundred or so scientists that I know would not be willing to “play ball” and publish stuff they didn’t believe is that they don’t have to. They all have multiple sources of funding from government, private institutions and, occasionally, corporations. I think it must be important to keep the funding sources widely separated to avoid either the appearance, or fact, of scientists being under the control of any one group with an agenda.

          That said, I don’t perceive that the scientific community is under the sinister pressure that you describe.I’d hear hallway talk, if it were. That said, what do retired climate scientists say? Do you have sources to back up that they, as a group, are “not alarmed”??

        • Jeffrey Scott Boerst November 2, 2013, 12:48 AM

          You obviously have little idea as to how scientists and research is funded.

          • GunillaBx November 2, 2013, 6:23 AM

            I have a pretty good idea since I worked as a scientist myself. We were pretty good at knowing where the winds were blowing in the political community. When we applied for grants, our boss/professor reviewd (?) our applications and added the right buzzwords. Worked like a charm :)

    • Aqua4U October 31, 2013, 11:58 PM

      Capitalism is a miserable failure and will eventually lead to the extinction of life on Earth… Distilled, it is based on greed and separating mankind from nature. Read Vandana Shiva’s book “Earth Democracy” for a clue.

      There is no justice.. there’s just us!

      • Shootist November 1, 2013, 12:18 AM

        Why would I read a book by someone with a made up Hippy name?

        • Aqua4U November 1, 2013, 10:56 PM

          Sorry, this woman is from India and is a scientist and physicist.. not some stoned-out hippy. So… how long have you been a racist pig?

          • Shootist November 1, 2013, 9:16 PM

            Argumentum ad hominem. There was nothing “racist” about the remark. I’d say the same thing to River Phoenix or Bill Least Heat Moon (in fact I may have said it to Bill . . .)

            Besides anyone who would write a book called Earth Democracy is probably more interested in assuming control of the means of production than making sure people vote.

      • Kapitalist November 1, 2013, 1:14 PM

        Capitalism is just us. Individuals free to cooperate mutually voluntarily. That’s the only system which has ever produced any kind of wealth. Compare that with the creationist visions of a super natural governmental power in some countries like Saudi and N.Korea.

      • ckirmser November 1, 2013, 1:53 PM

        With clues from drivel like Shiva’s book, you’ll never want for ignorance.

        Or, toilet paper.

        • Aqua4U November 1, 2013, 10:21 PM

          Did you read the book? I will assume that you did not.. indicating that the rest of your ideas are also based on hear-say or late nite radio.

          • ITSRUF November 1, 2013, 11:34 PM

            I never read that book, and I have plenty to say. Why do only those who read a book of your choice “have something to say”?

          • ckirmser November 2, 2013, 12:49 PM

            I haven’t read Hubbard’s, Dianetics, either, but I still know he was a scam artist and his “church” is a huge fraud.

            Got anything else?

      • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:37 PM

        Your a special kind of stupid aren’t you ?

      • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:47 PM

        If you love communism so much leave the country go try it for awhile then see how you like it

        • Aqua4U November 1, 2013, 11:02 PM

          Your innuendo is actually quite offensive…You assume ‘either/or’ and can’t see farther than that. This speaks multitudes about your intellect.

  • octopusmagnificens October 31, 2013, 5:17 PM

    This data is unacceptable. United Nations will require the shooting down of that satellite.

    • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:41 PM

      Amen

    • Aqua4U November 1, 2013, 10:27 PM

      Typical… if someone disagrees with you.. shoot them.

  • Shootist October 31, 2013, 5:42 PM

    “The polar bears are drowning” – Al Gore – democrat, says he invented the Internet.

    “The polar bears will be fine.” – Freeman Dyson – smartest man never to win the Nobel

    Who ya gonna believe?

    • Aqua4U October 31, 2013, 11:49 PM

      Not you…

      • Shootist November 1, 2013, 12:16 AM

        No one ask you to believe me. The quotes are facts and not subject to debate.

        • Aqua4U November 1, 2013, 10:29 PM

          Your facts are skewed to fit your belief system and not reality.

          • ITSRUF November 1, 2013, 11:30 PM

            You are allowing your preconceived biases to cloud your judgement. Just go on an say it: you would rather trust Gore.

          • William Sparrow November 1, 2013, 11:37 PM

            Let’s trust the anti-science “Christian Conservatives”, right?

          • Shootist November 1, 2013, 9:12 PM

            Freeman Dyson, the first President of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Conservative? My stars and garters.

            Facts have a way of nibbling eco-socialist propaganda to death.

          • William Sparrow November 1, 2013, 10:14 PM

            Did I mention Freeman Dyson? I have nothing but respect for his renowned work in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics and his intellect, but that doesn’t make him or anyone else an authority on the this or any other subject. Even Dyson says he hasn’t drawn any concrete opinion with regard to Climate Change. Because he tends toward the conclusion that Climate change isn’t a result of mankind’s involvement doesn’t mean this is an accepted theory. Perhaps you’d do well to research the scientific method before taking unfounded potshots at someone.

          • Shootist November 1, 2013, 10:48 PM

            I’m a geologist/hydrologist . I’ve been following “climate change” since before it was announced that glaciation would return at any moment. The consensus was certain then, too.

            Dyson’s specialty is data synthesis. If you will read what Dyson said (Google Dyson New York Times 2008) you will find he takes exception with Mann, et. al.’s use of statistics and statistical modeling. No climate change model can take known temperatures from, say, 100 years ago and produce anything resembling the current climate. Dyson asks reasonably how the modelers can expect anyone to accept their model to accurately predict the climate of 100 years hence.

            There are other issues as well, not the least of which is warmer climates have always been kinder to life, yet what do the propagandists say? The world will end. That is what the press reports and that is what the gullible, and the terminally Low Information Voter, accept.

            The climate changes. It’s what climates do. 11,500 years ago southern England went from being heavily forested to tundra in a time less than 100 years. From 850CE – 1250 CE, parts of Greenland supported dairy farms, and commercial grape vineyards were farmed in Scotland. It has been too cold, is still too cold, for those activities to exist today.

            I’m not saying we should continue an open ended experiment of burning hydrocarbons but you do have to realize something quite important: All the hydrocarbons in the crust, were once in the air as CO2. Plants extracted the CO2 and were buried. Mostly they turned to coal. Coral extracted CO2 for sea water and turned it into calcium carbonate, whereby they were buried and changed to limestone. Animals ate plants died and were buried turning to petroleum products. Carbon is cooked in subduction zones and simple, carbon rich gases are created, methane and ethane. Volcanoes, black smokers, white smokers, tar pits and petroleum seeps, release orders of magnitude more “greenhouse” gases than all of mankind’s activities combined. The amounts are so vastly different they cannot be compared.

            These are some of the reasons men like Dyson, often scientists whose tucker isn’t dependent upon government research grants, “tends toward the conclusion that Climate change isn’t a result of mankind’s involvement”.

          • Joe_de_Loe November 2, 2013, 2:17 AM

            This is well written and I will up vote you for it. Dyson’s critiques are well thought out, especially the one on “heresy” (reference 1). But you come to erroneous conclusions. I will deal with your points in turn.

            First, Dyson does not deny that global warming exists or is partially anthrogenic in origin, He objects to climate models that predict a specific temperature rise, arguing that advances in technology will so alter things that the models are wrong. He may well turn out to be correct, time will tell. But that does not negate the fact that the warming exists.It does not change the fact that it is reasonable to assume that it is more likely than not, that the warming will continue in the short term. Obviously such extrapolations become less reliable and ultimately meaningless (without competent models) going farther in the future,

            You state that “before it was determined that glaciation would return at any moment. The consensus was certain then, too”. This is an ignorato elenchi argument – The fact that some scientists were wrong before does not prove that others are wrong now.

            You argue that “climate changes. It is what climates do.” This is certainly true, and you have the climate scientists, among others, to thank for this knowledge. But it is a false attribution – most of the papers as written are not denying that the climate can and does change. They are saying that greenhouse gasses and temperatures are increasing fast now (2,3)- some are saying faster than at any time in the geological record, Yes, climate changes. That does not mean that human activity cannot also affect the climate.

            You argue that there have been warmer times, even in human history. This appears to be true, But it does not mean that rising temperatures now will not have costly implications for society. I am agnostic on whether it is more costly to let the changes hit and deal with them, or to attempt to combat the warming by switching fuel sources, or, as Dyson suggests, bioengineering carbon-sink trees (and then not cutting them down) or dumping carbon into American topsoil (and not extracting it via agriculture).

            Finally you argue that natural sources release orders of magnitude more greenhouse gasses than manmade sources, For what gas? Not for the halocarbons, for example. I will assume that you mean CO2. Yes, the release of natural CO2 is about 30 gigaTons vs 750 for natural sources (4). But the natural environment is also absorbing about 750 GT of CO2.. The rest is building up in the atmosphere and oceans. That is why we are around 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere now which compares with < 300 ppm during major warm spells of the past (2).

            references

            1 http://edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society

            2 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract

            3 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

            4 http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

      • GunillaBx November 1, 2013, 1:01 PM

        Seriously. Who do you trust? Gore or Dyson?

        • William Sparrow November 1, 2013, 10:15 PM

          I trust neither, I like to think for myself. I certainly know which way you lean….

          • Shootist November 1, 2013, 10:54 PM

            Lying dog of a Politician or socially aware scientist with no political ax to grind? The choice should be simple enough.

            At least a rational being would be inclined to keep an open mind. And look at the sources of the propaganda while finding data points that are often, conveniently misrepresented (Mann’s hockey stick) or ignored (medieval climate optimum, Roman climate optimum).

  • rwayford October 31, 2013, 6:45 PM

    GW? Or AGW?
    re: the Antarctic,
    the most significant thing about AGW
    is man’s reduction of the Ozone Hole-expanding CFC’s
    …which have exacerbated LOCAL Warming.
    Ask NASA.
    AUTOMATIC, THERMOSTATIC

    LOCAL Cooling is the only function

    on GW Ozone Holes SERVE.

    Also, for geeks who missed the memo

    published in 9/2012
    “Geophysical Journal” by Richard P. Allan:

    Satellites have OBSERVED

    net-NEGATIVE cloud reinforcement of radiative warming,

    (outside the Tropics) which means

    your 20-Century ASSumptions

    were not just wrong

    but diametrically opposed to Reality.

    I looked up, “Interglacial (melting) Era’s”.
    It seems we’re in one
    –called the Holocene Era–
    but it is ACTUALLY straddled by
    a (paleo-)current Ice Age of 2-3 million years!
    This 11,400-year-old “melting” Era
    describes what’s kept the Ice Age at bay and
    Global Temperatures from AVERAGING -18°C.!

    So, it would be FAR MORE REMARKABLE
    since Nature has thrown this delightful,
    11,400 year (so far) gala
    INTER-(get it?)-GLACIAL (melting) Era,
    if the Poles did NOT thaw!

    OF COURSE, in the latest 15 year GW Pause,
    we saw some of the hottest years ever (“recorded” ;-)
    We’ve been waiting 11,400 years for this party to “Warm up!”
    Who even knew there were Ozone Holes
    before the beginning of the Meteorological Space Age?
    Yet modelers had conclusions? A dire forecast?

    Which became worshipped as a Consensus View?
    (Think, The (Luminiferous) Aether!)
    After a single decade?
    O’ Vanity! Thou art a strumpet!

    Ice Ages are bad for babies,
    plants and other LIVING things.
    Kinda’ ruins the whole effect…
    unless frozen babies SERVE your political agenda.

    • William Sparrow October 31, 2013, 11:37 PM

      Superb cut and paste job. It fits most of your unintelligible post.

  • rwayford October 31, 2013, 7:06 PM

    I loved this Comment, found in “The Telegraph”
    (a conservative British online news outlet)
    9/29/13 (the weekend IPCC-AR5 was SO desperately flogged)
    I’ve reprinted this from a Commenter entitled, “braqueish”:
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    It really is time to reclaim the “environmental” movement from this
    disastrous dead-end.
    The over-emphasis of carbon dioxide as a “problem” has led to
    the extraordinary corruption of a well-meaning human enterprise.

    If you strip out the meme that human beings are a cancer upon the planet and
    that the vastness of our available resources are fragile and endangered there’s nothing left of this discourse.

    The surface temperature hasn’t increased and
    is more likely to drop dangerously than surge catastrophically.
    Cold kills a lot more people, plants and animals than warmth.

    It’s possible to be against wasteful energy use but for protecting our elderly
    people from hypothermia.

    The entire Millibandian thesis is based upon discredited science.

    In fact every major “environmental” campaign over the last two/three
    decades has had a disastrous effect upon the poorest and most vulnerable people
    while having no evidential impact upon degradation of the environment.

    Take electric cars for example.
    Lithium ion batteries, rare earth inducers — both horribly polluting.

    Wind turbines:
    massive concrete bases sunk into the earth, rare earth (again) generator units,
    avian and bat deaths by the thousand.

    But the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
    not only supports these but benefits financially from them.
    It argues that global warming will harm birds more than localised destruction
    of raptors and seabirds despite the fact that birds, of all creatures, are
    uniquely mobile.

    Current species evolved before the place where I’m writing this
    was crushed under three kilometres of ice.
    They managed to survive that and are back in force.

    The World Wildlife Fund
    — promoter of especially photogenic animals (e.g. pandas and snow leopards) —
    benefits financially from bogus carbon “offset” schemes.
    This where people like Al Gore can mitigate their energy intensive mansions

    and jet-set lifestyles by buying up options from the clearance of rain forest to produce biofuels.
    This is not only environmentally insane but positively mediaeval.
    Think Papal Indulgences.

    Biofuels are perhaps the most incredibly abusive of “green” policies

    since they are neither carbon neutral nor anything other than

    a bizarre corruption of the worldwide food market.
    People are dying of starvation from their effect in their tens of thousands,
    just as they continue to die from “environmental” campaigns
    against effective anti-malarial insecticides

    and genetically modified “golden rice”.

    Environmental activists love trees.
    So why are they so keen to have American woodlands clear logged
    (i.e. smashed down by bulldozers) to provide “sustainable” woodchips
    for British power stations?

    Especially since the conversion of our power plants
    makes them considerably less efficient.

    The emphasis on carbon dioxide has turned the environmental movement inside out.
    It benefits carbon traders, big oil

    (yes, they are major funders of the “environmental” movement — ask Dana Nuccitelli),
    corporate raiders, subsidy farmers (like the Prime Minister’s father in law),
    and corporate “green” publicity machines.

    It disbenefits the poorest and most vulnerable of people,

    the environment, and any sense of common decency.

    The “scientists” who provide a fig-leaf of decency for this abomination
    are a disgrace to their profession and to humanity.
    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    Much said above
    does not “translate” for US…
    which makes that which does,
    SO MUCH MORE POIGNANT.

    Thanks to the ever-escalating
    theoretical-GIGO-modeled gymnastics of
    a bevy of Kyoto-spawned entities, like UN-IPCC and
    so-called Consensus View “institutional” derivatives,
    has reached the level of Religious Fanaticism.

    Yet, the disproven, discredited, and yet, utterly shameless
    “CATASTROPHIC!” Anthropogene Global Warming-meme
    does not care about such petty concerns as
    Truth or FACTS, (which do not Confirm Bias)!
    Selfish memes only care about one thing,
    and will throw FAITHFUL Followers, by droves,
    under whatever bus to accomplish
    it’s singular, AUTOMATIC mission:
    REPLICATION.

    So we see Religious Fanatics,
    like this ELF/ALF defendant
    in Portland, OR, U.S. Court
    finally pleading guilty.
    It is just a question of time before
    some other Fanatic detonates,
    feeling their Religion has been
    “cornered” by incontrovertible facts
    –What “CATASTROPHE!” ?– Globally, since 1998:

    Pop. +18%, CO2 +6.5% (at 394 ppm); RUNAWAY Temp. CHANGE Anomaly, AWOL.

    Since 1958: Pop. +145%, CO2 +27%; “CATASTROPHIC!” Warming, still AWOL.
    Ergo, “Mann-made” CO2 ? CAGWarming;
    plain to anyone willing to research
    non-Fox channels for information
    and “do the Math.”

    IF their premise were correct
    and had been from 1958-to-date,
    the CO2 would read 760 ppm ALREADY.
    Their premise is utterly BOGUS.

    ***IF the UN SO-fears “Mann-Made” CO2,
    –INHERENT IN IT CONSENSUS VIEW BELIEF–
    why is Red China the only nation doing something
    MEANINGFUL about the “FUTURE-Climate” (an oxymoron;
    “climate” being LONG-term Weather “HISTORY”) Change:

    Addressing GHPE (Global Human Population Explosion!)

    ***IF you’re a “True Believer”
    the math SHOULD BE inescapable:

    (Accelerating) More Man = More (missing) CO2 = More (AWOL) CAGW!
    But the CAGW-meme doesn’t care about CO2
    Or any “future” not immediately inherent
    in it’s mindless, solitary goal:
    Replication!

    How SOON may we expect
    “new” Domestic Terrorists
    to appear in our headlines?
    Someone listening to the
    IPCC-Consensus View
    voices in their head…
    detonating their bomb-vest
    in the Heartland dining hall,
    while shrieking the
    Enviro-Zealot’s equivalent of
    “Allah akbar!”
    xxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I feel genuinely sorry for the Japanese.
    They’ve windmill-tilted against faux hobgoblins
    and, in the process, introduced REAL hobgoblins
    such as Fukushima, et al.
    The national loss of face is inestimable to US.

  • David English October 31, 2013, 2:09 PM

    This website is rapidly losing credibility. Reputable science forums will not allow man-made climate change propaganda (from either side) anywhere near their forums. That is how ridiculous it is.
    Stop with the politichate and get back to science.

  • Aqua4U October 31, 2013, 11:12 PM

    What a crock! ‘Reputable science forums…’ You must be reading your ‘scientific’ posts from the walls of public restrooms? What ‘reputable science forums’ are you referring to? Name a few… please. I want to back check your sources.

    • David English November 1, 2013, 8:50 AM

      Nothing to “huh?” about. As long as the facts cannot be agreed upon, and political stance guides one’s words, a science website should not engage in the climate change discussion.

  • Aqua4U October 31, 2013, 11:42 PM

    Just read through the comments below and had to laugh to keep from crying. The AGW crowd obviously don’t have a clue. They deny the MOUNTAINS of data pouring in about the ongoing and increasing effects of global warming. These insipid propagandists are obviously on someone’s payroll or otherwise seriously invested in the destruction of the biosphere… Sad ~@; P

    • David English November 1, 2013, 9:00 AM

      *This* is why any website trying to be scientifically legitimate should not engage in climate-speak.

  • Nian Kwor November 1, 2013, 5:00 AM

    It is too late to deal with the warming planet in the short term. We need strategies to deal with what will happen in the short term and strategies to deal with the long term.
    Rule #1. Don’t shit in your own nest
    Rule #2. Exterminate panic merchants and those that make a living from it.
    Rule #3. Be skeptical but not stupid.
    If all else fails, migrate to Mars.

  • Heber Rizzo November 1, 2013, 12:12 PM

    So… the IPCC told us that the ice in both poles should decrease, and when it decreased in the Arctic it was “global warming”, but when it increases in the antarctic (as it has been since 1979 at least) it is “something else”. Of course, when it increases again in the Arctic (a 60% in 2013) there is no mention of it… and the same silence over the global temperatures stalled for the last 17 years (and falling since 2002).
    Anthropogenic global warming (then global warming, then climate change, now climate disrupt) is just a fraudulent scam.

    • ITSRUF November 1, 2013, 11:27 PM

      Well said.

    • SquireB November 3, 2013, 11:02 AM

      It’s a revenue venue. Ponzi scheme. Ditto Rizzo!

  • GunillaBx November 1, 2013, 1:05 PM

    The US is the last outpost for AGW believers…

    • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:49 PM

      Yes communism has snuffed it out all over the world

  • ckirmser November 1, 2013, 1:51 PM

    Agreed.
    I, too, am disgusted with this site’s penchant to include politics into its content. Deal with fact and fact only, or lose my subscription.

    • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:30 PM

      Bye

      • ckirmser November 2, 2013, 12:44 PM

        So, you have no interest in fact?

  • ckirmser November 1, 2013, 1:57 PM

    For those thinking that increased sea ice means we can relax about climate change, this humorous video explains the difference between land ice (glaciers) and sea ice (which is generated from snow, rainfall and fresh water).”

    Since when is humor a substitute for facts?

    What is wrong with this country, taking our knowledge from comedians?

    No wonder we are doing so poorly in science compared to other nations.

    “It’s definitely worth four minutes of your time.”

    No, it’s not.

  • andrea silverthorne November 1, 2013, 3:46 PM

    Some one need to look at the possibility the reason the ice is growing in Antarctica is because the water is CO 2 saturated and at methane hydrate dissociation as the source of global warming.

    I believe global warming is being brought to us from the deep earth, radiant heat released to water, when methane hydrates dissociate, which they are doing in massive numbers both naturally and with help from man by the act of trying to harvest hydrates.

    Methane oxidizes to CO2. By 2010 methane had increased by 150% to CO2’s 35%.

    We should look at methane and other sources of added radiation to the earth as the source of both global warming and ultimately life threatening global cooling, which I believe is around the corner.

    Population is not the problem Given a environment with normal integrity there can be no such thing as over fishing.

    Fish have been around a lot longer than humans, start having anywhere from 200 to thousands of babies at age one, where females have an average 2.5 children starting at an average age of 18. We need to start listening to scientists who say it is the chemical condition of the water that is to blame.

  • Joe_de_Loe November 1, 2013, 9:23 PM

    So you think that a site called Universe Today should not report on data coming from a satellite in orbit?

    And you think that everyone must agree to every theory that is published here? I guess that Universe Today better not publish anything concerning the Earth being round because there are still doubters, It had better stop reporting about galaxies being millions of light-years away because some believe the universe is only a few thousand years old.

    Science consists of proposing theories, and then gathering evidence that supports or refutes those theories. This web site, and its forum, discuss those theories, including occasionally climate change. The fact that climate change is politicized does not change the evidence, or that it is science, or that data gathered from space is relevant to a site about space.

    Reading through your comments, you also seem to think that we should not be talking about climate change in this forum, suggesting that Universe Today preclude the discussion. That would be a form of suppression, the very thing some of you think is affecting the science that you do not agree with.

    • David English November 2, 2013, 8:25 AM

      When conjecture and politicking is presented as scientific fact, science is betrayed. I’ve got no problem with people speaking their minds. I guess I’ve always seen UT as a reputable source of scientific info. Spouting AGW drivel will make UT nothing but another hack site.

  • William Benoit November 1, 2013, 9:31 PM

    The facts are al gore is a scam artist

  • Dampe November 2, 2013, 2:00 AM

    What a load of nonsense. Take your greenwashing religion somewhere else.

  • David English November 2, 2013, 7:03 PM

    I like the smug vocal patterns/tones of the video. This must mean AGW is right. I can’t say how disturbed I am that UT allows this drivel. Everyone wants a clean planet, but when used as a weapon to enrich political friends and destroy political enemies, it is to the extreme of the “Wrong Side of History” spectrum. UT should follow the example of other reputable science rags and stay FAR away from the AGW argument.

  • SquireB November 3, 2013, 11:00 AM

    The idea that climate doesn’t change is ludicrous it has always changed. More to do with orbit than ANY other factor.

hide